NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANJIT SINGH, No. 19-70396
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-401-408
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 10, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: HURWITZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,*** District
Judge.
Ranjit Singh, a citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Singh did not
show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(a).
a. A petitioner who has demonstrated past persecution on account of a
protected ground is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of future persecution.
Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). The “key question”
in determining whether Singh has shown past persecution is “whether, looking at the
cumulative effect of all the incidents that a Petitioner has suffered, the treatment he
received rises to the level of persecution.” Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172,
1176–77 (9th Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). Singh never suffered physical harm, nor was
he arrested. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2021). And police
never threatened to harm Singh or his family. The beating of Singh’s friend by
police does not compel a finding of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d
1012, 1017 (9th Cir. 2003).
b. To establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution, a
petitioner must present “credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record.” Id. at
1016 (quoting Duarte de Guinac v. INS, 179 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999)). That
police demanded money from Singh’s friend and visited his mother, without
2
indicating why they are interested in Singh, does not compel the finding that Singh
will face persecution if he returns to India.1
2. Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. See
Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001). Singh’s speculation that
police will harm him on return, his mother’s interactions with police, and the
documentary evidence do not compel the conclusion that he is more likely than not
to be tortured if removed. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th
Cir. 2010).
PETITION DENIED.
1
Singh also points to reports from the Immigration and Refugee Board of
Canada to support his claim, but those reports were not before the IJ and the BIA
did not have to consider them. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). In any event, the
reports do not compel the finding that Singh will face persecution.
3